Guillory, Patrick Sharard, PD-0163-15

Raul Amaro died from a single gunshot outside a southwest Houston Conoco store; the State alleged capital murder during a robbery.
Guillory's conviction rested on circumstantial evidence with no direct eyewitness identification tying him to the shooting.
Key witness Vasquez testified about a planned robbery and a revolver visible in the backseat; Rose later identified Guillory at trial as part of the pair with Young.
Surveillance footage and testimonies described two attackers; there was dispute over which individual fired the fatal shot.
The trial court did not instruct on certain lesser-included offenses; Guillory challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and trial- court rulings on instructions and closing remarks.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the evidence sufficient and finding no reversible error; Guillory seeks discretionary review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legal sufficiency of capital murder	Guillory argues no evidence proves robbery/murder beyond a reasonable doubt.	State failed to prove intent and participation; no positive identification.	Evidence sufficient to support conviction
Accomplice-witness instruction	Omission of instruction prejudiced Guillory by not clarifying Vasquez as a potential accomplice.	Non-accomplice evidence sufficed; instruction not required.	Omission deemed harmless; no reversible error
Lesser-included offense: felony murder	Felony murder instruction warranted as lesser offense.	No affirmative evidence eliminating intent to kill; not entitled to felony-murder instruction.	No abuse; not entitled to felony murder instruction
Lesser-included offense: aggravated assault	Trial court should have charged aggravated assault as a lesser offense.	No evidence Guillory intended only serious bodily injury; not a valid lesser charge.	No error; aggravated assault instruction not required
Closing argument improper plea for law enforcement	Prosecutor improperly urged jury to yield to law enforcement or to consider Amaro family’s desires.	Argument was within permissible closing or a permissible plea for law enforcement.	Closing remarks not reversible error

Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency on appeal)
U.S. v. Gallardo-Tropero, 185 F.3d 307 (5th Cir.1999) (prosecutor closing-argument considerations in appellate review)
Guzman v. State, 188 S.W.3d 185 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (lesser-included offense analysis principles)
Casanova v. State, 383 S.W.3d 530 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) (harm analysis for accomplice-witness instruction)
Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) (definition of accomplice and required testimony)
Floyd v. Meachum, 907 F.2d 347 (2nd Cir.1990) (due process considerations in closing statements)